department with two members of the house judiciary committee. we will hear from democratic presented of madeleine dean of pennsylvania and then republican representative mike johnson louisiana. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning. it is thursday, june 25, 2020. we begin on the recent efforts i protesters to topple statues and monuments in cities across the country. while protesters say the efforts target temples of oppression, president trump says he will be issuing an executive order protect tech public monuments and punish those who vandalize them. we are asking for your thoughts. you think some monuments should be taken down, and where you draw the line? for those who support the recent statue efforts, the number (202) 748-8000. for those who oppose the efforts, (202) 748-8001.

you can also send us a text, that number (202) 748-8003. please include your name or where you are from. .therwise on social media a very good thursday morning. you can start calling you now. to let you know where we are on capitol hill, the houses and at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. eastern. president trump headed to wisconsin to participate in a town hall and visit a shipbuilding firm. we do not know when that promised executive order on mound events and statues will -- on monuments and statues will come but the president had plenty to say at the white house yesterday. [video clip] >> we will have a strong executive order. we have the monuments act, which means 10 years in jail. we will have a strong executive order, i should have that by the

end of the week. we will have a very powerful statement. we have arrested numerous people for what took place outside of washington. in addition, the fbi is investigating hundreds of people throughout the country for what they have done to monuments, statues, and buildings. we have strong laws already on the books. time to, that is a long have fun one night. many of the people knocking down these statues do not have any idea what the statue is, what it means, who it is. when they knocked down grant, they want to knock down grant. now they're looking at jesus christ. they're looking at george washington. they are looking abraham lincoln . thomas jefferson. not going to happen. not going to happen. not as long as i'm here. as far as democrats are concerned they could care less whether or not it happens.

the american people get it. host: president trump from the white house yesterday. he was talking about laws on the books already. he is referring to the veterans memorial preservation act passed in 2003 in the wake of a rash of vandalism incidents at military cemeteries. here is an abc news fact check about what that act actually does. here is the text of the act as cited in that story. whoever willfully injures or attempts to destroy any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorated the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the united states shall be fined title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. statues commemorating historical figures such as christopher columbus or francis scott key would not apply, since they

never served in the armed forces. though plenty of statues of members of the confederacy have come down in recent weeks since the protests began. here is a map from abc news about some of the places where specifically confederate statues have been taken down. this map a few days old at this point. the red on this map indicating statues removed by protesters. the black statues that are scheduled to be removed, the blue, statues that have been removed legally by state and local governments. abc putting together that map. we are asking you about this recent effort to remove statues and monuments. wondering what you think, where you would draw the line. of the efforts out of north carolina. support terry down statues. the only statue i would like to

the statue of liberty is a gift to this country. a time where people came to opportunity one blacks did not have any. that should be torn down. host: this is dan from north little rock, arkansas on the line from those who oppose the reason efforts. good morning. caller: yes. am i on? host: yes, sir. caller: i oppose it. i think they should be guarded and i think the people that has done that should be caught and that is theison, only way you will stop it. they are wrecking america's past is what they are doing. i wish trump would do something about it. that is all i have to say. thank you, sir. host: you say they should be guarded. in washington, d.c., more are

being guarded by members of the national guard. activates 400 unarmed guard members to protect d.c. monuments. those 400 unarmed members of the washington, d.c. national guard activated to prevent any defacing or destruction of monument according to defense officials. the story from the washington post noting interior secretary david bernhardt requested the guardsmen to bolster the national park police according to air force sergeant eric klapper. the guardsmen posted in armory in d.c. awaiting directions on where and when they will be used. some guardsmen mobilized had transitioned back to supporting efforts to fight the coronavirus pandemic, now returning to civil disturbance missions in washington, d.c.. tyrone out of michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i think all of the

statues of the people who declared war against the united states should be taken down. i am not in favor of destroying them, but i feel they should be taken down and put in a museum instead of being out for the public to see them like that. ,f you want to go and see them you can charge admission to those museums and stuff like that. thatnk everyone of them commemorates people who went to war against this country should be taken down. that is my comment. host: before you go, we are asking where folks draw the line. i want to ask you about john c calhoun. he died before the civil war in 1850, but with his proslavery doctrine one of those who let the south towards secession. this is a story from the washington times about the effort in charleston, south

carolina, to take down that calhoun statute that sits in the center of charleston. although he was not in time when war was declared, is that when you would be ok taking down? yes.r: i think the people of charleston have spoken. they came together and said that needs to go. i'm in favor of that one being taken down as well. host: charleston city council and mayor voted unanimously on tuesday to move it to "inappropriate site where it will be protected and preserved." actions therethe in south carolina. the removal process taking several hours. this week, 16 hours according to the washington times story. ralph is next in washington, d.c., where a lot of the interest in this story is taking place.

ralph, go ahead. caller: i am watching this, and you have zealots deciding based upon their personal beliefs that i am going to go out and personally remove something if i do not like it. remember the taliban when they were blowing up those historic statues based upon their belief of the new muslim order -- we have the truth and everybody else who disagrees should be destroyed. let's take a look of the cultural revolution in china. you have something similar to what we have today. we want to destroy our past history, wipe it out, because we have the truth. we will go through and we will purge everybody. what gets me is where you have mayors who are like we have a riding mob who decided we want to get rid of something, and i'm in agreement with them. you do not have the right to be in agreement with them. you have a right to enforce the laws. if you want to have that removed

, you go through legal process and you do it properly. how about if we got some guy -- what if we get -- they're are only a few of them left, some right wing bigots who decide i will take down the martin luther king statue or i will take down this other statue. how would you feel about that? lawcannot have rules of being disobeyed because somebody -- host: your delegate in the district of columbia is working to remove several statues in the city. andrew jackson is one she is specifically talking about legislation to take that down, and also the emancipation statue in linkin park, you can see the picture of that statue. abraham lincoln standing over a freed slave. would you be ok if it went through that process, if your

delegate proposed legislation and one about that wipe? caller: i would be all right with it. let me say this. when you have zealots, even in office, we had mayor bowser criticized the president. she was sitting there watching our city burn. because she agrees with some of the antifa thugs from the suburbs, most of the kids came from the suburbs, they were white kids burning down shops. she sat back and she was criticizing trump when he sent out troops. i do not like trump, but i do not like zealots burning in writing and smashing people in the face because they have a handle on the truth. , they only have one trick in their bag. .hat is victimization the d.c. government, they want

statehood, but the only excuse they have is we are victims. it is insane. host: ralph in washington, d.c. we talked to congresswoman eleanor holmes norton on this program yesterday about her d.c. statehood bill, and you can watch that online if you want to see that interview. i want to play part of the interview in which we ask her about statue and monument removal in the district. this is what she had to say. [video clip] legislationlike by to do what the people are apparently trying to do in a virtual revolutionary act, and that is to take down the statues of confederate soldiers and confederate generals who betrayed their country. that says a lot about washington, d.c. you can do everything you want to do here. some of these, because it was controlled by the federal -- some of the

statues are on d.c. land, if there on federal land, i have introduced bills that would take peopleose statues so the do not have to do it themselves. you've been watching tv, they have been doing it night after night. the pike statue was the most notorious because he betrayed his own soldiers. they themselves tried to get rid of him. was prominently displayed in the district of columbia and the people were able to bring down the statue. they have not been able to take down all of the statues. i think it is up to the congress

of the united states to do that job. host: what is the emancipation statue in lincoln park and why would you want that taken down? guest: the emancipation statue depicts a slave kneeling at the foot of abraham lincoln. it is just the kind of depiction to the segregation and the denial of full equality for the african-americans in our country. i do not want these statues, even the most notorious of them, simply taken down. i want them put in a museum and i want that statue putting a museum. we need to learn from our history. the way to learn from our history is not to destroy it. put it where people can see it and learned what it stood for

and how far we have come. nortonleanor holmes yesterday on this program. one more note on the emancipation statue in lincoln park on capitol hill. this is the plaque on that statue. it says "it grateful memory of abraham lincoln, this monument was erected by the western sanitary commission of st. louis, missouri with funds contributed solely by emancipation sit -- by emancipated citizens of the united states declared free by his proclamation, january 1, 1863." that is that statue eleanor holmes norton was talking about. christopher from orangeburg, south carolina on the line for those who support the recent actions. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a history teacher, i'm a historian. i do support the statues being removed.

host: why is that? caller: there are a couple of reasons. i will try to be quick. the first is you cannot teach history through a statue without conceptualization. if i show you a statue and do not tell you anything, the only history you will learn is somebody decided whoever that was needed a statue. the other big reason, especially with these confederate monuments, is they were built about 70 years after the civil war in places with large black nadirations during the of race relations. that was a time when where the race relations were going very badly. they were built as a reminder, to remind the local people who was in charge. who still has the power in your city. the only other thing i wanted to say was -- two quick things.

when it comes to raising history, nobody wants to erase the history. we want to teach the history. i studied one of the big historians for lee. we want to teach who these people really were. that means to stop line icing them. the other thing is there is -- to stop lionizing them. there is a guy named long street you never hear about. he was lee's second hand man. he was considered a strategic and tactical -- very brilliant. you never see him. the reason for that is after the war long street supported full reconciliation, he supported desegregation, he supported making sure blacks have the same rights as whites. the lost cause theorists and those historians erased him and they said he was a traitor to the south, etc.. , you setore you go

your in favor of taking down confederate statues. where do you draw the line after that? there has been calls to take down christopher columbus statues. there been calls to take down thomas jefferson statues because he was a slaveholder. is ais the line you think fair and rational line? caller: of fair and rational line is when you look at the context of the people in their time. this is an argument that comes ata lot -- you have to look in the context of their time. the pope looked at how bad columbus was. people look at his slave, sally hemmings. looking at people in the context of the time, there were always abolitionists. there were people who were

rebelling against these. we have people who we can make statues to in the same period who did these great things that did not do the horrible things. christopher columbus could be replaced by amerigo vespucci. i say that as an italian-american and a historian. host: thanks for the call out of south carolina. you mentioned abolitionists. the statue of one prominent abolitionist in wisconsin was taken down this past week. this is a story out of the milwaukee journal sentinel. during chaos at the wisconsin state capitol on tuesday night, protesters tore down two statues that have stood in front of the statehouse for decades, including one memorializing a wisconsin abolitionist who died trying to end slavery during the civil war. his name was hans christian heg. the story talks about his service during the civil war. he died fighting for the union. he chased a retreating

infederate army in georgia 1863. he was leading a charge in front of his troops when he was shot in the abdomen. he died the next morning. monumentlar pyramid marks the spot where he was mortally wounded according to the national park service. statueory about the heg that has been taken down from the milwaukee. howard from texas for those who oppose the recent efforts. go ahead. destructionpose the of public property and private property. that is the wrong way to go about it. there are legal ways to do it. alan from brooklyn new york. you are next on the line for those who support. caller: good morning. i have a basic view that it is positive for us to remove

offensive statues. i have great concern about the speed and process we are using. remember the robert mueller report did say in 2016 russia worked hard on the web to magnify issues that were going to divide americans. he said they were going to continue doing it. to bencern is that happening now. the problem is not the desire to remove offensive statues, but if we do things too rapidly this is something that will divide us and force racial divisions to the fore in an election that could otherwise give us a fair consideration of america's two candidates. we do not want to have the merits of the candidates replaced with a supercharged racial identity agenda. that is what this could create if we remove these things and too much haste without an adequate process. think of what monuments are. they are the physical constitution of our country.

we do not amend the constitution rapidly, especially public spaces. these are things that are not changed in rapid fashion. we should not be rushing to do any of this without thinking about the consequences for the opposite side and for understanding of the history that got us here. if we will do this examination about monuments, we should be doing it about the effects of messages in media and entertainment and asked how much of media is now reflecting the people in society and how much is creating or magnifying it. if we will do that with monuments, we should be doing it with all forms of public expression, not to censor them, but to discuss and analyze them and analyze what we are hoping to achieve. we need to educate people in the best and most time sensitive way ,ossible, not just with statues but with everything we are doing in the public realm. host: thanks for the call from brooklyn, new york.

the front page of "the washington times" on the politics of this dispute over monuments and statues. the headline, trump will point to desecration of statues in campaign against democrat role. -- against democrat rule. democrat operatives saying the strategy of highlighting this favors the president in his battle with joe biden after the turbulent months with covid-19 and economic shut down. "the longer this goes on, the better off trump is in terms of campaign prospects, said a republican strategist. people will not suffer property destruction for a long period of time. he says drawing a redline on monuments could be a powerful issue for president trump in battleground states, especially arizona, florida, pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin." wisconsin where the president is scheduled to visit today. taking your calls and also

comments on social medias. on facebook, confederate statues, yes, take them down. others come it depends. jackson, yes, washington no, jefferson no, grant no. aaron, i support mostly, not the ones you're are tearing down. grant was a union leader. who supportseryone criminal acts are also supporting criminals. democratic leaders have not announced these acts, thus they support criminals. democratic leaders talking about this recent issue. cory booker on the senate floor recently on statues and monuments coming down. [video clip]

>> you cannot separate the confederate statues from this history and legacy of white supremacy in this country. indeed, in the vast history of our nation, those confederate statues represent four years of the confederacy. in the entire history of our country, held as heroes, people who took up arms against their , who fought to keep and sustain that vile institution of slavery, who let us into the bloodiest war of our , who losthistory battle after battle until they were defeated. the relics of that four year , giving the sacred space

to these traders upon our nation -- these traitors upon our nation, is not just an insult to america as a whole, they are painful, insulting, difficult injury being compounded to so many american citizens who understand the very desire to put people who represent four plus years of treason, the very desire to put them there in an , was yetst terrorism another attempt at the suppression of some of our citizens in this country. the continued presence of these statues in the halls is an affront to african-americans and the ideals of our nation. when we proclaim this to be not just a place of liberty and justice for all, but as we seek to be more beloved nation, a

kinder nation, a nation of equal respect and equal dignity, it is an assault on all of those ideals. host: democratic senator cory booker on the senate floor. senator elizabeth warren also weighing in on her legislative efforts to work through the defense appropriation bill to change the names of military assets named after the confederacy, saying 35 democratic senators are joining her today on legislation to change the names of all races and other military assets named for the confederacy within one year. she says we need to stop honoring this ugly and racist legacy. senator josh hawley, republican of missouri sending out a release yesterday about his own legislative efforts. he said in that release, the latest effort to unilaterally rename bases and remove war memorials behind closed doors smacks of the cancel culture the left wants to enclose on the nation.

-- wants to impose on the nation. the reality is this this was never about the confederacy. that is what left-wing activists want us to believe. the events where riders have attacked american religious landmarks tell us otherwise. it only took days for them to move on to grant and lincoln and the mob will keep marching through all of our cultural institutions until every american whom the world proud deems unjust -- whom the woke crowd deems unjust is canceled. vince out of georgia, you are next. caller: i agree with taking the statues down. nobody celebrates a loss like the south. i do not know why people think to honores put up these people against united states and took up arms against noted states. my idea would be to take them down and put them in confederate cemeteries, which there are hundreds across the south.

that way folks who want to look at these confederate patriots, if you will, have a place to look at them all you want. take them down and put them in cemeteries. host: mike is next. silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: how are you? tax dollars, as a black person. i will speak for all black america. i'm going to speak for 99%. host: speak for yourself, mike. caller: not my tax dollars to preserve and cut the grass and the upkeep. if you do not want your tax thanrs used for abortion, i do not want my tax dollars used for the upkeep of these rapists. just think about this.

to 1865, no black female, a child to a woman, had the concept of saying no. no. 1618 on back, they were not human. put them into context. there were animals. i hate that context argument crap. these were human beings. childhood.aped from black women could not -- and then it went into segregation and jim crow for a hundred years that you could not even bring up charges against a white. it is foul and ugly. these men talking my preserving -- it is mostly men saying

preserve this history. you want to preserve a history of rape? rape? 1968,619 to practically couldwhen black women finally confront the rapists and say, you raped me and bring charges against them? i do not know about a conviction, but they could at least bring something before them. foul.just ugly and think of any white male, a 13-year-old white boy could just rape a black woman or black child. host: mike in silver spring. charles is next. good morning. history, whether it is four years -- they took down washington, so it is more than four years.

they took 10 all these -- this is history that we have. you want to knock on history? we are going to learn from our mistakes. this is something we should be told. planarks the clue clerks -- clue clocks cla -- klu klux klan, white supremacy, and jihad. i once saw the president in cairo being asked by a college student what you think of jihad? his reply was, we almost learned how to live together. , butnot against muslims there are a lot of muslims against jihad. they are the threat. that is what this country's going to go to. host: good morning, bob. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: as an architectural

design student and person who loves history, there could be a compromise here. i have heard excellent comments this morning. i do like the idea of transferring some of the statues to the cemeteries, but think of -- picture in your mind stonehenge. you have these monoliths standing up and then you put a -- maybe the character three quarters of the size of a human being and then on each historyu portray the that accompanies those statues. so the statue is half hidden, half exposed, and then the history is on each panel, laid out very clear on the atrocities and victories, the whole thing. and aget a little of both

lot of oral history along with that. host: can i ask you and a jeweled question? who gets -- age-old question? who gets to decide what history is depicted? caller: all history. we cannot erase it. it should not be erased. our children need understand that these figures played a part in our history. it was a dark, extremely bad part of our history, but that is how we learn how to be a better citizen. upould -- again, i would put -- reduce their size and do not put them on a pedestal to make them grandiose. put them in a three quarters size so when you walk in your looking i tie with this figure -- i tie with this figure. on each panel, spell out the

atrocities this person did and unionizenion tried to ourselves and get rid of it. then i would like to make a suggestion. for a couple programs. president trump is the worst environmentalist we have ever had in office. i was wondering if you might run a program on all his regressive environmental policies and possibly another program because our mental illness in this country is so rampant. onre are new studies mushrooms they are using with ptsd patients and vets and they are finding great success in this area. you might be able to run a program on the environmental degradation that is going on behind the scenes and metal health. do always appreciate

suggestions for future topics on this program. we work hard to bring you relevant and topics every day here only washington journal three hours a day every day. when congress is in early, it is less than three hours. we are only going to be in for two hours today. the house coming in at 9:00 a.m. eastern today. the senate is in at 10:00. the house is set to work on that police reform bill. you can watch that here on c-span. you can continue calling in on this topic about statues and monuments coming down around the country. want to update you on other stories. yesterday, an appeals court ordered the dismissal of the case against michael flynn, a decision that likely ends the prosecution of president donald trump's first former national security advisor in a 2-1 ruling. the appeals court panel ordered

judge emmet sullivan to dismiss the case. dip -- the opinion called sullivan's actions, including appointing a third-party, unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty. the ruling represents a victory for flynn, who is accused -- who accused investigators of entrapping him. today, butfrom usa the president talking about that story and pretty much every major paper today. one other story is continuing to watch the results from the tuesday primaries taking place in new york, kentucky, and virginia. results are slower to come out unusual because of the coronavirus pandemic. so many absentee ballots yet to be counted. as the washington post points out my challenges from the left are poised to win in those

races, including in that 16th district democratic primary featuring jamaal brown, the challenger to the longtime of thesman eliot engel house foreign affairs committee. the cook political report, house editor there, tweeting he has seen enough of the results. has defeated, he declared, eliot engel. he also noted the results are not official or final yet there. there are still tens of thousands of absentee ballots to count and the margin could narrow. not in the outcome is doubt and jamaal bowman declaring victory on twitter yesterday, he said, about noon eastern, i'm a black man raised by a single mother in a housing project. that story does not usually end in congress, but today that 11-year-old boy eaten by police

is about to be your representative. i cannot wait to get to d.c. and cause problems for those maintaining the status quo. the resultsto watch from several closely watch contests in kentucky and new york in the days to come. minneapolis, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a disabled american veteran behind on the line for this country. i want to say to everybody who hows calling, talking about would like people feel about a martin luther king statue being taken down, i do not have any problem with it. take it down and then take down the other 1700 statues that are trying to degrade us. people, wake up. we are losing our country. thatis the only country made his own racism. this country is full of racism.

racism is not something you're born with. you have to teach this. this country will never get better until people start recognizing that everybody needs to have the same rights. this is ridiculous. it is really disgraceful. people, we do not have much time. there is so much anger. if you have been listening to c-span, all you hear is anger. we have to stop this. we have to get rid of this guy and start thinking about and looking at we all are flesh and blood. we can all die. america,time people in white america, listens to black america is when we start tearing up stuff and that is wrong. rights been begging for

for 400 years, to be treated like human beings. ever that only race never has been used the word terrorism. we do not terrorize. we beg and you guys never give. host: randy is out of michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to start by thanking you and all the other men and women it takes to bring us this great program. it is doing an excellent service for the nation. tost thing i would like disagree with the way you have your statement as removing the statues. they are not removing them. they are destroying them. in this country, we do have laws . if you want to remove, you get petitions out. get out there and march with petitions. get the people in the area to sign the petitions and get it taken down that way. notroying stuff -- i do

want my neighborhood to look like that, what they are leaving their neighborhoods looking like. ofre is a way to get rid statues the right and proper way. i am somebody that has walked them streets my whole life protesting and i do not destroy stuff. there is no reason to destroy stuff in this country. if we want to start looking at history, we better go all the way back in history before the country even started. there are a lot of parts everybody wants to forget, the nasty parts of history. don't call me no white supremacist all the time. all that is doing is making me mad and making you look bad. host: in terms of removal efforts, you talk about doing it the right way. are you ok with what happened in charleston met the charleston city council and mayor voting to take down the john c calhoun statue? we talked about a congresswoman enter efforts to get a jackson statue removed and the lincoln

emancipation park statue removed. are you ok with those efforts? caller: yes, as long as you get the vote endo out and ask the people. voters are the boss in this country. those are the boss. it is the voters. you get the voters to sign the petitions and do it, you can get is one nice thing in this country. if you get enough people to agree with you, you can make change. that is how you do it. i appreciate you letting me have this time. this is a couple days old, but the blue statues have been removed legally by the government of the localities or states. the red on this map, statues that have been removed by protesters. .here is more red to add this map is about five days old.

we have seen several incidents this week, including some high-profile ones, especially in wisconsin. ,ere is the scene in wisconsin governor tony evers deploying aftertional guard protesters toppled statues there. that is from the wall street journal this morning. joanna, maryland. i absolutely support the taking down of the statues. i want to give you an analogy. i have heard people say if you take down the confederate flags and statues you are denying our history. they do not realize -- and i am a white lady -- how painful this is to black folks. i want to give you an analogy. erect a think you would statue of adolf hitler in the center of berlin or name

military bases after him or fly nazi flags over court houses, which is what we do here with confederate flags and confederate statues and naming military bases after confederate generals. it has to stop. it is long overdue. frankly, i am ashamed of our past and i think we need to anew andew -- start everybody deserves equal rights. the man that called a couple calls before me who said we have been begging for our rights, nobody should have to beg for their rights. to use their heads a little and think about it. you cannot grow up in somebody else's shoes, but you need to walk alongside them and understand where their pain is

coming from. thank you. next.bob is tyler, texas. good morning. bob, are you with us? caller: good morning. host: is this bob? caller: i am from virginia. host: go ahead. you are on the air. virginia and i agree with the gentleman from , bothota and maryland black gentleman that spoke about we have gone through so much. whites thatto see have come on this talkshow and spoke about how they do not want to see the statues come down. here in richmond that

they are taking them down, but i do not like the fact that the people are taking it down. i want it to be taken -- it should have been down a long time ago. when i run around in richmond and see so many statues, like why doert e. lee statue, we have to pay for our tax statue,to pay for every taking care of it? hatredtatues represent point blank. anybody that agrees that they want the statues up, take them to a museum. if you want to see it, pay for it. go look at them. i despise every time that i come by a statue and it represents hatred. , the we get past this

united states is full of racism. that man up there in the white house -- black people built the white house, yet he is going to walk around as if nothing is happening. look at the coronavirus. they are killing black people almost like one for every 50 black people. only two whites die. when i go to the hospital and you are going to tell me to go back home, i am sick of it. host: that is the caller from virginia this morning. now we will try bob in texas. caller: good morning. we already have a law that protects our statues. it is our only written guarantee in the constitution. if we do not know what that is or what that means, maybe you all can have a daylong program

during the week of constitution -- thath c-span's spanned september 12 through 19. get into the original intent of the constitution and the guarantee is thereof, things get so simplified. republic.tee is a and he my representative makes these decisions. if he makes the wrong decision, i can vote him out of office within two years. it is as simple as that. is mob are doing now rule, which is what john adams feared more than anything, more than invaders. democracy is short-lived and bloody.

what we are doing now is democracy instead of a republican form of government. host: about 10 minutes left in this section of the washington journal. keep going in. i did want to also update you on what is happening today on the house floor. democraticd the police reform bill. we will talk about that bill with two members of the house judiciary committee coming up in our 8:00 a.m. hour of the washington journal. this coming a day after the senate decided not to move to debate on the republican proposed police reform bill. not enough democrats joining republicans in the senate to end debate on that bill. the headline from usa today this morning, senate kratz blocked the gop policing bill, the package offered by senator tim scott, the sole black republican in the senate, aimed to increase

transparency at police agencies, incentivizing but not mandating departments use body cameras and banned chokehold by withholding federal grants. among the democrats who did join republicans to move forward, two , doug jonesenators of alabama, angus king of maine voted to start debate on that measure but not getting the required 60 votes there. senator chuck schumer in the senate talking about the republican police reform bill yesterday. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> so much of the anger in the country is directed at the lack of accountability for police officers who violate american rights. as far as i can tell, the republican bill does not even attempt one significant reform to bring more accountability to

police officers who are guilty of misconduct. that doessent a bill nothing on accountability and say they are solving or dealing with the program -- problem in close to an etiquette -- adequate way, they are mistaken. i could spend more time describing what the republican bill does not do than what it does do. the harsh fact is a is so deeply flawed it cannot serve as a useful starting point for real reform. do not ask me. do not ask the democrats here. ask the leading civil-rights have declaredwho their strong opposition not only to this bill but have urged us not to move forward because they know this is a sham which will lead to know reform whatsoever. yesterday, 138 civil rights

groups sent an open letter to that we votending no on moving to proceed today. i have the letter here. i ask unanimous consent that the full p >> >> printed in the record. without objection -- be printed in the record. >> without objection. better guardian of the civil rights of african-americans when it comes to police reform, the naacp or mitch mcconnell? if this bill were such a good path to reform, why wouldn't civil-rights organizations say go forward, maybe we will get something done? because they know the bill is a ruse and nothing will get done and that is why it is designed. that is the way it is designed. senator chuck schumer talking about that police reform bill. the house has to take up their version of the bill. we will talk more about that in

our next hour of the washington journal. taking your phone calls on the recent efforts to remove statues and monuments around this country. for those who support those efforts, it is (202) 748-8000. for those who oppose those efforts, (202) 748-8001. before we get back to her phone calls, i did want to show you a tweet from senator tim scott, the republican sponsor of that police reform bill, who tweeted that he wished senate democrats would have done their jobs yesterday. now the american people have to wait longer for overdue police reforms. this is the video he tweeted out as well. [video clip] >> we keep missing the opportunity to tell people who are most vulnerable that we hear you, see you, care. democrats refused to give us votes to have a conversation about police reform when i

offered them every amendment they would want. replacey we could anything they did not like, even though 70% of the bill they wanted. so frustrating to see that presidential politics -- it is kind of like november this year comes before july. walkingnator tim scott through the basement of the capital after there were not enough votes to move to debate on his police reform bill. back to our phone calls. texasas been waiting in for those who oppose the removal of statues and monuments. caller: hello? i do not know why you put that babbling retart d -- host: we are going to go to vicky in florida. caller: good morning and thank

you for allowing me to speak. that i have a problem with statues that are placed around the nation that had something to do with slaying of innocent blood and killing and destroying the lives of people of african dissent and saying these people fought to have freedom. that was not the case. we do have people that did fight in the underground railroad and there were others that had fought for the goodness of some of us. , andrew robert e. lee jackson. these people fought to keep us oppressed, to keep black people -- not to have civil-rights and to strip us of our dignity come our name, who we were as a people.

god is not pleasing with and america has that on its hands, slaying of innocent blood. they need to know that god is watching. things will be brought out and this is the hand of god in the situation. i hope that america will take time to marinate on what i am saying because this is not something we should take lightly. this is something that needs to stop. this confederate flag and all of these things are symbols of hatred, symbols of terrorism. to know the people are hurting from this, you need to remove these things, put them in a museum somewhere. you have a history, it is the good emmett the bad, the ugly. if you do not tell the whole

story, you have no history. host: this is dottie, georgia. caller: good morning. i oppose some of them being .aken down confederate statues should be taken down in a legal way. i think it is a slippery slope. are knocking down anything, not even paying attention. they want to change the name of everything. they are going to have to change everything in this country. look at new york. duke of york was a promoter of the slave trade. where does it end? host: on the renaming, you said you are ok with taking down confederate statues. are you ok with renaming military bases named after? confederate generals -- after confederate generals? caller: it needs to be done legally.

if you just change everything, you are going to change the name of almost everything in the country. where does it end? there has to be a limit somewhere. if you go back in the history of the world, there is no civilization that did not take from someone else. where does end? who the american indians were here fought other tribes and killed them and took their land. that is just human nature. that is the way we are. this is richard in colorado. caller: thank you for having the seized -- program. there is such a disgusting history in this country and it 1870'sbad that in the laws were not drawn up that would have made the confederate flag illegal and treasonous and statues illegal and treasonous because all these folks did that

randy confederate armies, they just were responsible for the death of lots of young men and young women in this country. it is sad and disgusting. you should ask ken burns about it. he would be a great person. it is one thing to memorialize and be saddened by the people who have died in the history of these wars that went on, but it is a disgusting task. host: ken burns has been on this program several times. are topics he has addressed, all available at c-span.org. in the, our last caller first segment of the washington journal. we will talk about police reform efforts and the department of justice oversight with two top members of the house judiciary committee.

dean ofadeleine pennsylvania and later republican mike johnson of louisiana. we will be right back. ♪ >> watch house votes on policing reform and d.c. state legislation today at 10:00 a.m. eastern live on c-span. the house will debate and vote on the democrats' policing reform bill. house will vote on legislation to designate the district of columbia as a state. watch this week live today at friday on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app.

>> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court. you can watch all of the public affairs program on television, online, or our free radio app and be part of the national conversation through the washington journal program or our social media feed. c-span, created by america's cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. washington journal continues. two housefirst of judiciary committee members we will hear from. madeleine dean joins us on the day that the house will vote on a sweeping police reform bill. there is a lot in this bill, but if you could point to just one provision that would make the biggest difference if it was

passed, what would you want to? -- point to? guest: this is a very big day and vote and i am proud i will vote for the george floyd justice and policing act. get at policeo brutality, systemic racism, so we are banning chokeholds that floyd used against george as an officer of the law put his knee on the man's neck, choking the life out of him for eight minutes and 46 seconds. that is important. our viewers are seeing various provisions of the george floyd justice and policing act. as they read through those, we talk to one of your fellow judiciary members on these program yesterday. -- this program yesterday.

he said he would be in favor of several of these provisions but the larger bill he cannot get behind. why not try to move these provisions if you can be assured of getting bipartisan support on a few of them and move them through the house and senate? host: -- guest: we are at a civil rights moment. two weeks ago, we had a hearing with george floyd's brother. , we are at ang civil rights moment. this is not a time for piecemeal legislation. this is a time for action. the question is to the representatives. why would he want to take it one piece at a time? it is past time for bold action. i wonder what the republican caucus could possibly be against. host: is there anything that would defund the police?

guest: you heard in the hearing and markup, this notion of defund. i think that is a distraction i the republicans. thedid they not talk about grievous harm we know happens? why did they not want to talk about the fact that african american men are three times more likely to end up dead than white men in terms of police brutality? defund the police is not part of this bill. what i believe we should be talking about is right funding. that is for appropriators. there is no defunding in this bill. that simile was not there. i do not know why the republicans wasted all their time and breath on that. host: do you think your democratic colleagues in the senate made the right decision in evenoin republicans opening debate on senator tim scott's police reform bill?

guest: i do. it is a recognition that this is an important civil rights moment. you do not do the bear minimum in a moment like this. that is not what america is calling for parent you have seen us in the streets. they do not want bear minimum only to findve on more systemic racism. i am proud that the democrats in the senate said no to that. is ouradeleine dean guest, taking your calls on phone lines split by party. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. congresswoman, as viewers are calling in, we now know that the attorney general is planning to testify before the judiciary committee next month. what do you plan on asking him if he shows up?

guest: we have a host of questions. i will not preview that. realize he is the only attorney general not to come before the house judiciary committee? every year, the attorney general is supposed to report. he failed to show up last year. we had him scheduled, but that had to be postponed. to july 28.greed there's so much to ask him. the grotesque, unlawful clearing of lafayette park for a photo op for the president of united states, the removal of peaceful protesters using police officers , secret service, pepper bombs, rubber bullets, whatever kinds of devices they used to remove

peaceful protesters. imagine that. themuch more is misrepresentation by this attorney general. he is supposed to be the top law enforcement independent of the president, attorney for our country. fixtureroven to be a for donald trump. it is very worrisome that he has been there and disregarded the rule of law. wasthing i noticed early on when the mueller report was released. what did the attorney general do at that time? within 48 hours, he submitted a letter, an open letter telling us what he believed the takeaways from this report were. total is representation of the report. and he stood by that for one month until we got the truth. this mr. percent tatian by fact grievous --

misrepresentation of fact and law is grievous. every day, there are new avenues of questions. think of what attempted to happen friday night when attorney general barr said u.s. attorney berman had resigned. berman had to say no, i did not. that kind of insidious attempted firing by misrepresenting that andic servant's words service, that is every single day. this attorney general acts on the political whims of the president, trying to help him create photo ops and future campaign commercials. he works at the whim of the president. sadly and dangerously is what he

, notone during coronavirus based on science or public health but based on politics. this is a person who has no credibility for the drop he holds. i wish you -- job you holds. i wish he would resign. host: we have plenty of callers waiting to chat with you. randy of michigan, a democrat. good morning. i would like to know what you think about attorney general william barr saying he wants to put pressure on marijuana businesses that did this legally. how can they go against what we voted in? it is like having a ruler rule over us -- the boat is the vote. how do you feel about that? guest: maybe you heard some of pointingmony yesterday out the inordinate amount of time and resources this attorney general puts against the

marijuana industry, the cannabis favorry entirely out of or disfavor by the president and attorney general. what do i think about it? i think it is just wrong, against the law. host: jimbo is out of bakersfield, california, and independent. caller: good morning. first, is, if we are going to have any statue of anyone, it should be a brian lamb. who contributed more to democracy in my lifetime than any other single individual. if we are going to honor people, let's honor the right people. host: i will tell you -- tell him you said that if i see him around the office. what is your question for the congresswoman? thisr: the components of bill, which have 80% of the support of the american public and could make it incredibly and

palatable for the republican held senate to not take an honest look at, why is the -- why notan letting just give us the three or four components of this bill, simple, stupid for the american people to understand that have 80% support and just run those up to the republicans and make them shoot it down? chokehold,bout the the information about police. is 80% consensus amongst the american people on most of this -- on major components. just about four or five of them. a good and fair question. let me go through some of the other issues in the bill, some of the measures in the bill. which one of these are not acceptable?

i think that about 80% of all of themeasures in there american public accepts. turnnot know why we would away a couple because mitch mcconnell will not do his job. it banned chokehold's, ins qualified immunity that shields endse officers -- qualified immunity that shields police officers. it combats racial profiling by new training for police officers. it mandates data collection. not please collect data and get back to us. it mandates data collection. it would mandate body cameras, dashboard cameras. it would create a national registry of misconduct of police. i do not know what, if any of those, the republicans are against. why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? i have not seen anything in this

bill that is so far out that we should be willing to scrap it at this time. we want to send to congress a bold measure to meet this moment. we are talking about 400 years of racism in this country. we cannot take half measures or quarter measures or less. i appreciate your question. i understand where it comes from, which is to try to get something done. this is what we want to pass. we put it over to the senate republican majority. if they cannot get it done, if they do not recognize the desperate need in this country for racial equality, maybe elections will make a difference. rapids, iowa. edward is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, john. good morning, rep. dean:. ative dean.t you had made a comment on the statistics that blacks are more likely to be killed by cops than

white people. ok. in 2019, there were 41 suspectss of unarmed being killed by cops. 41. nine were black. i do not see your numbers. the statistics. also with statistics, 13% of yet population is black, 53% of murders are made by black. 60% of violent crimes are committed by black. i do not see your statistics matching up with what has been put out there. host: congresswoman. guest: i simply question your data. you said unarmed, 40 unarmed people. peopleake a look at 1000

shot by police officers in a year. i hear what you're saying, edward. i question your data. the data is really irrefutable that, while 13 percent of our population is african-american, african-americans are for -- far more likely to be shot and killed by police officers. let's look at the case of allman arbery --allman ahmaud arbery. i do not believe policing reform is the entire answer. when was it ever right to shoot for falling asleep in a wendy's drive-through line? why would that have ever been the measure of justice that should have taken place? too often, we see black men shot in the back by police officers. we have to recognize that.

we have to recognize that black people often end up very different than for white people. i am the mother of three white adult sons. i worry about their safety all the time, and i certainly worried about it when they were younger. i did not have to have the talk about the fact that they might wind up dead if they had a traffic stop. this is just a reality in america and this moment is that recognition of that reality. host: knoxville, tennessee. this is donna, and independent. i watched that committee meeting for the george floyd bill and i was disgusted by behavior on both sides. these senators and congressmen expect us to come together when they cannot even come together, -- come together?

you refuse to work together. not one thing that the republicans put forward what they agree to. how do they want us to come together when they call names, they talk about trump being -- name-calling? but they do the same thing. how come -- can we come together when they cannot even work together for the american people? host: before you go, what was the -- what provision that republicans put forward in that hearing that you watched that you think should have been included in this bill? caller: one of the things they were against was taking away from the border. i cannot articulate it right now because it has been a few days or a week or whatever. security, someer of that that had nothing to do with george floyd, some of those arguments.

when nadler left the room and came back and voted no on one of the amendments, he was not even in the room to hear the arguments. he just voted no. it made me sick to watch. either side anymore. i cannot stomach government at all. it is disgusting. host: congresswoman dean, you were in the room. can you walk us through that a little and your response? guest: i really appreciate donna's comments. i worry greatly about what the american public sees during these hearings, these markups come at the behavior of our colleagues. of working together, i introduced a bill last year with a republican freshman member from the western part of pennsylvania. act havingtroduced a to do with grants to police departments to help with mental

the risingdeal with degree of suicide among police officers. we introduce that together and it passed the house, the senate. july 25, the president signed it. that is working together. there are opportunities for us to work together and i am looking for them. i agree with you. set ofas a disrespectful arguments being made. i have to say and i ask you to please listen to the distinction between the democrats and republicans. in the very hearing you were talking about republicans chose to talk about anything but policing reform. --t was the troubling absolutely troubling to us. no where did they mention -- i tried to figure out how much of their breath was used on speaking about the problem of racism in policing. almost not at all.

george floyd, almost not at all. so the measures we were talking about, almost not at all. what the republicans kept doing was bringing up defunding, defunding, defunding, which was not in this bill. your dismay and dissatisfaction, but i will say wereu that the democrats actually working toward measures to make our community safer and more equitable. there is a distinction between the conversations in the two caucuses. host: line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling because it disturbs police we talk about killing of unarmed black men that individuals will automatically bring up lack on black crime. -- black on black crime.

that shows they do not whatstand the message of black lives matter means. it means police are not held blatantlye when they kill individuals for no reason. what the message of black lives matter means. kills an unarmed individual, they should be prosecuted and sent to jail just. like anyone else -- just like anyone else. you best believe, with black on black crime, the individuals who perpetrate the crime will be sought after. they will be arrested and sent to jail. that usually does not happen with a policeman killing a black person.

me and i wanted to give my opinion about that matter. we want policeman, when they do something unlawfully, to go to jail just like everybody else. host: congresswoman? guest: i cannot agree with you more in that red herring, that distraction of black on black crime, we have to look at how we police. all communities -- police all communities. how do we police poor white communities? i share your dismay and you calling that out for what it is. in this bill, there is so much that gets at police training. when you talk about unarmed men, the two examples, george floyd, those police officers knew he was not armed. they had him on the ground, in

handcuffs, and he was allegedly stopped over possible counterfeit $20 bill. his brother asked, is my brother's life not worth more than $20? the police officers stood and acted as judge, jury, and executioner. ahmaud arbery,-- look at him running down the streets. mr. brooks, they knew he was unarmed. he was possibly drunk behind the wheel. what do we do? we send a man with a gun to shoot him in the back instead of saying pull over, i will get you a coffee and get you home safely? what have we become in this society in terms of how we treat black, unarmed men? host: about five minutes left with congresswoman madeleine dean of the house judiciary committee.

this is lewis in oklahoma. caller: good morning. , ok, toion is representative dean, i'm a vietnam veteran. i am 72 years old. how do you feel about veterans of this country, of what we are seeing? we gave our time and lives to the united states. my dad did world war ii. what we are seeing in this country now, it does not look good. i will say this for president donald trump. he has gave more to this country for the veterans than anybody that has ever sat in the white house. he has supported the veterans. i hope you do, too. guest: i am pleased to talk to you, lewis. my own eldest brother, robert louis dean, is a vietnam

veteran. he served in the navy and did two tours of duty in vietnam. we honor his service. my other brother served in the navy stateside during the vietnam war. i admire your service. i am in all of our veterans and i lift up any chance i can your service. often you all came home and wound up continuum to serve, as teachers, police officers, in health care, firefighting, all kinds of community service. and lift up the veterans. -- absolutely honor and lift up the veterans. i wish we will go back to a time when we all served in some way. too few of us have shared in that sacrifice of military service. thank you for your service. i always admire and honor you.

host: last call, angie, north carolina. caller: good morning. it ised to say that disheartening in this country. with the covid situation, everybody was locked up in their homes. then george floyd happened. before george floyd happened, people are looking at their tv's and seeing the true disparities, the true systematic racism that has been going on in this country for over 400 years. the police department is rooted in it. every department in government is rooted in this. finally, everybody sees it. this is not even a white or black situation anymore. and is right and wrong people see it for what it is. you have a government that is

failing horribly. it is ridiculous, the way they acted and that judicial meeting. it is like kids in a playground. it is disgusting. this country looks crazy. the president is throwing fuel on the fire. what are we going to do as a country, as a government. how are you going to get us out of this? host: i will give you the final minute or two. guest: i appreciate your outrage. i share it. i do. what you can do is look to elected officials who believe we have to make incredible, powerful, bold change. it is not just about policing, as important as the bill is. we have to make sure education -- i was a state representative for six and half years in my own

district. we are not equitably funding education for all of our children. i argue it should be excellent, equitable funding. it is not just policing them as important as that is. .e have to make sure we educate we have to make sure jobs are available to all, economic opportunities to people of every caller, especially folks who are black and brown. islth care, mental health important and we have to make sure we provide access to adequate health care, both mental and physical. we have to do both things. we have to reform policing, but we have to invest in our communities in a more robust and equitable way, recognizing the inequality that is there. you are right here in covid only ,xposed what is already there systemic racism, systemic disparity in health outcomes and

economic outcomes for black and white america. we have to do something about it and i would argue the democratic caucus of the house is trying to do something about it even though we do wind up against a circus attitude by republican members too often. host: congresswoman madeleine dean of pennsylvania joining us via zoom this morning. we do appreciate the to a up next, we will talk republican member of the house judiciary committee, mike johnson of louisiana. after the break. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on book tv, former national security advisor john bolton and his book "the room where it happened," on his time in the trump administration. then, faith and freedom coalition founder adolph reed on

his book. eastern,d at 9:00 p.m. author and robin hood ceo wes moore on his book about the 2015 baltimore uprising. he is interviewed by the most senior fellow, heather mcgee. c-span2. >> sunday night on q&a, university of california historian of medicine elena conus, author of "faxing lessons -- the >> we will face distribution problems. we will face problems of equity. even if we have enough vaccine for everybody. there will be those who have the

privilege to say, i'm not comfortable getting in until 5 million people have been vaccinated. then there will be those who say, i have to get vaccinated because i have to go to work and make sure i'm safe and that i can provide for my family. i guarantee we will see problems of equity. historians are not supposed to guarantee anything about the future, but this is one thing i feel concerned about. >> watched sunday night on c-span's q&a. "washington journal," continues. host: congressman the mike johnson is the second of two judiciary committee members joining us today on the day the house will take up a sweeping -- reform bill. you opposed to sending this to the floor. you still oppose it, and if so why? guest: great to be with you. we have no choice but to oppose this because it goes too far.

it throws the baby out with the bathwater in so many areas. practical some solutions and real reforms. i'm cosponsoring and assisting the house version of the tim scott bill that was rejected yesterday in the senate. we believe that is the right approach. it was full of everything that almost every democrat said was important, but what it did not pelosi'sand what nancy bill does include, is, for example, the complete doing a of qualified immunity. qualified immunity is an important thing for law enforcement in this country. can't wipe it out completely. it needs reform, but that is the measure that allows officers to do their job. let's remember, the vast majority of police officers are self-sacrificing public servants who take their own lives at risk every single day and they put on that badge to protect and serve. they need the kinds of legal protections that are in the law.

in our house judiciary committee markup of this bill, many of my colleagues acknowledged that that was a problem. maybe it will need further study, but we won't get a chance. it is going nowhere, it will be dead on arrival in the senate and it is a tragic outcome when the country needs real police reform, that we can't get the poly -- partisan politics aside. warrants, a tool that have come under criticism. you expressed concern about what a major change ending no knock warrants would mean. can you explain? guest: that's another major problem we have with this bill. our democratic colleagues acknowledged privately that we make some valid points. sheriffs,o my local law enforcement officers on the streets every day. no knock warrants are rarely used in most jurisdictions. you have to get a judge to agree that it is warranted and necessary under particular

circumstances. arehose rare cases, they instrumental and protecting everyone involved, not just the law enforcement officers, it also the suspect. if a violent drug dealer with a known history of that has about he will not be taken alive, for example, and they have to arrest this individual, it makes sense to go to that house at 3:00 a.m. and break-in when this person is asleep. and they don't have time to grab their automatic weapons and start firing away at the police. you do away with that tool for law enforcement and you put more people in jeopardy. that is another example of things that need a full approach. we don't need to rush to judgment. there probably is perform warranted, but we need to do it in a deliberate fashion and, again, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. host: the tim scott build not going to get time for debate. do you have expectations that the house version of that is

going to get time on the house floor? guest: i doubt it. it is a tragic outcome because it is a great piece of legislation. as senator scott said, give a speech on the senate floor and i've shared it. i hope every american will take time to watch that. he explained the process that went into that. he literally went to the democrats and said, i will take any amendment you propose. he offered five amendments, then 20, and a manager's amendment that would retool the bill. at the end of the day, they gave him this to farm, as we say, because it is about politics. they want to preserve this issue for the election cycle. that is tragic. senator scott said it as well as anyone could. explaining that the process is broken. partisan politics are prevailing over the needs of the people. host: house set to n at 9:00 eastern. until then, we have congressman mike johnson, republican of louisiana taking your phone

calls. for lines split up as usual by party, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. that committee hearing yesterday. what is your expectation for attorney general william barr's inspected appearance before your committee at the end of the next month? guest: we are glad to have him. i'm glad he will be able to be there to answer the questions that some of the democrats, our colleagues, have for him. they have taunted the department of justice and claim he would not come. of course, he is going to show them up on that. i am a supporter of attorney general barr. i think he's doing a great job. this is not his first rodeo. he is trying to pursue the truth and we support him in that. there is a lot of messes to clean up.

we know that in the previous administration there were high ranking fbi -- officials involved in corruption. there were abusing their power. we have to reform those things and we need an attorney general that would do that. i'm glad he is coming. i'm glad he will take those questions and i'm confident he will have the right answers. host: plenty of collars for you. i did want to ask you about the supreme court case having to do with that abortion law. louisiana. that is one of the high-profile cases we are waiting for the decision to be handed down on in the final days of this term of the supreme court. guest: a lot of people are watching that case. it is about the admitting privileges, the legislature in louisiana voted on a democrat will, bipartisan landslide majority, that said that an abortion provider in louisiana needed to have admitting privileges at the hospital in the event of emergencies.

that is to protect women's health. it's not even whether you are pro-life, head is about protecting the women that go into these procedures. tragically, the abortion industry choosing profits over people. they challenged that. i was one of the lawyers who defended the law in the federal district court five years ago before i got elected to public office. now it has come full circle. we expect the opinion any day and it may be anytime this week. it will be a landmark opinion. it is the first abortion-related decision since president trump's appointees have been there. the composition of the court is important had we hope it will make the right decision to uphold women's health. the second component of that case is about standing. does the abortion industry have the right to challenge legitimate health and safety regulations passed by state legislatures? the corporate address that as well and that would be a seachange. read fromhing to be

how this court has decided cases already? guest: there has been some disappointments from a conservative standpoint. i think they're going to get this one right. i was at the oral arguments and the case, i sat right behind our attorney general. he put on a great case. based on the questions that were being asked, have some confidence that we will win this one. i certainly hope we do, because this is about protecting all women and allowing the states the right they have to regulate public health and safety and protect their jurisdictions. host: add up first out of california. good morning. caller: good morning. ed. i'd like to talk to the representative about the qualified immunity. i would think that if somebody is doing the right thing and

wanting to do the right thing, the last thing they are thinking about is suit. qualified immunity. i really don't think it's necessary for somebody that is really doing the right thing, if somebody is doing the wrong thing than they don't need qualified immunity. i just think of somebody's doing the right thing, they're not too worried about being sued. guest: i hear you. i wish it were that simple. i spent a lot of time talking to police officers in my district and around the country. they are deeply concerned about this. law enforcement is under assault right now, from every side. it is a dangerous job, they are being spat upon by these protesters that turn into violent mobs. they are facing a lot of public scrutiny. the police chiefs and the police

recruiters tell us is that if you get rid of qualified immunity, you make it very difficult to recruit new law enforcement officers. it's not the highest paying job. take your life into your own hands every time you clock in for work. who will do this critical public service to maintain law & order? to maintain public safety in all of our areas around the country if you take away the ability for them to do their job? the issue about qualified immunity is this. if a law enforcement officer is in good faith -- and the vast majority are -- and they followed their training and go out on the street and they grab someone or they arrest someone and they use force. if you get rid of qualified immunity it allows every single person arrested, every single person confronted by a law enforcement officer to have a lawsuit against an officer. the ultimate outcome of that would be, not only would you have a difficult time recruiting police officers, the ones on the

job will just stay in their cars. there will be reluctant to do the job because they would be afraid they would be personally liable for doing it. you can have that. it makes no sense. that is why we oppose the complete doing away with qualified immunity. we need to do that another thoughtful way and that's not what the democrats bill offers. host: buffalo new york. caller: good morning. i do agree with a lot of americans that the needs to be reforms, and as for defining the police, if anything, for better training you need money. defunding the police for me is totally ridiculous. i would like to tell the congresswoman -- congressman to keep standing tall, stand united as a party and keep standing up to these marxist in congress that want to change our nation for the worse. i hope you can stay united. thank you, congressman. guest: i appreciate that. i think the comments are well taken.

we are trying to advance right now -- i'm the chair of the republican study committee. it is the largest caucus of conservatives. i like to say, what we are trying to advance, although there are republican principles associated with our platform, at their foundation they are american principles. we believe in these ideals of limited government and rule of law and peace through strength. free markets, human dignity, the sanctity of every human life. those are not just republican ideals, although they are associated with our party. those of the ideals that made america the exceptional nation that it is. the rise we see of socialism and anarchy and defunding the police, those are anathema to the founding principles of this nation. i think the more we are able to say that, i think the better off we are going to be. host: somerville, massachusetts. like, independent.

caller: good morning. i had to check what we were talking about as i got on the phone and i started hearing about abortion. i don't think the congressperson is aware that this is an about abortion. of i'm growing really tired disingenuouslyso when we talk about almost anything. believe we are talking about abortion. host: mike, there is a big case coming down from the supreme court. perhaps even within the next couple of days here on that issue. that is why we were talking about this morning. caller: yeah, and that's why they are talking about it in the judiciary committee. when they should be talking about police reform. abouteflect and talk abortion. it is really confusing to me, it

is really disrespectful to me. you have a congressperson appear talking about peace through strength? is this 1984 by orwell? what is going on? then you have a caller calling in, talking about marxist and socialist because people want choke holds band or police reform, and i agree that defunding the police or abolishing the police isn't realistic, but i think it's disingenuous to ignore the fact that most people are talking not about abolishing the police or totally defunding them, but really reallocating responsibility and resources so that elise don't come in and murder someone who is mentally morehen someone who is equipped and trained to respond to that situation is sent in instead. host: we will take that point

and let the congressman respond. guest: mike gave me a lot to work with, but i will address that issue about mental health. we all agree that is an important component to policing. those who lead law enforcement on the first to acknowledge it. we could use more resources in that area to be able to deal with not only the mental health aspects of suspects and the people that law enforcement deals with, but the officers themselves. and a lot of police departments we have veterans who have been serving overseas, tours of duty and link recent conflicts. some of them come back with ptsd issues and other things, issues of their own. need to be able to address that. need to have the mechanisms in place to be able to identify officers in those high-risk get thems so we can what they need to do their job well. of course it would be ideal to have a social worker in every that's- squad car, but

not feasible from a funding standpoint. i think everybody recognizes that. we just need thoughtful dialogue and practical solutions. that is something that should be bipartisan on capitol hill. the tim scott bill addressed so much of this, and it is a shame it has been killed by the democrats. host: about 10 minutes before the house comes in. we will take you there for gavel-to-gavel coverage. until then, more of your phone calls. georgia, republican. connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. congress comment on debating or trying to debate police reform. televisionthe reporting, they should see by the nose on their face that they are looking at the wrong group of people to reform. the general reform public, at least the groups doing this demonstrations and

the violence. it boggles my mind that after george floyd was murdered, yes, murdered, there are police that make mistakes, but they have been vilified and are under a lot of stress, but it doesn't excuse that. in any event, the demonstrators came out, filling the streets, calling for justice, when anybody who saw the videos could have seen that there was no way that these police officers were not going to be called to justice. their march,rted they filled the streets, denying other people there justice to use the streets. they walked along like a bunch of sheep, allowing these criminals to be with them, hiding themselves in the crowd, shooting police officers,

creating arson, is this is in the area, as this is who employ people from the neighborhood, and also looting. it just doesn't make any sense that they just walked along and allowed this neighborhood, their neighborhood, to be destroyed without lifting a finger to stop it. it just escalated, totally out of control with these cases that autonomouse these locations, which they have absolutely no control over, the people within them with all of the shootings and killings and rapes you hear about and the extortions. they should look at reforming laws for the citizens, maybe they should make stronger penalties. another thing is, when they finally get to their senses, it

is time to go home. when they get home, if they are still living home, the parents should tell them, i'm sorry, you are not welcome. you have to earn your way back into this house. host: congressman? guest: that was an overdose of common sense there. he's exactly right. you have to recognize, as does law enforcement, as does the president of the united states and most members of congress, there is a big difference between a peaceful, first amendment protest, which we all support, and a violent, lawless mob, which we have seen around the country. we cannot allow the latter. have to support the former. that is the problem then after the murder of george floyd, as was said, he did have some peaceful protest. change.itimate call for it is being acted upon, but those morphed into these crazy anarchists who are trying to take over the street. --is echoedsays it

by millions of americans. i heard it over and over over the weekend. people are just really alarmed about this. how could this happen? how could it be allowed? we have to have law enforcement do their jobs. if it is federal property or federal statute -- statute, the president and the federal government has jurisdiction. otherwise it is down to the states and mayors who have to take charge. they cannot allow that in their streets, and if they do it as a dereliction of duty. the president suggested there ought to be a 10-year as an sentence for persons who vandalized these public monuments and destroy private property. i think these are legitimate ideas and things we ought to pursue. there are some laws that need to be enforced. we need to enhance penalties and the like, i'm all for it. said, thatresident executive order and got statues

and protecting them. are there statues and monuments you think should come down? should i process entail? guest: the process is key, right? it should be made on the local level. most of the things people are complaining about our at the municipal level or state legislatures. that should be a decision made collectively by people through a deliberative process. if there is a statue of someone who is a hatemonger, a slaveowner or something, if the people want to make that decision to remove that, but to an appropriate location, that is fine. we are opposing as is the lawless vandalism, the mobs out of control who decided unilaterally to rick ends down. -- two rip things down. as you know, tonight we are expecting this mob in washington dc, has about to take down the lincoln emancipation statue. that statue was dedicated by frederick douglass. it was paid for by funds raised

by former slaves who were freed by lincoln. it is a statue that recognizes the opposite of racism. yet these ignorant young people who want to tear it down think it is a racist symbol. it is crazy. we have to slow this down, we have to apply law and order, and do things in a deliberate way. host: time for a couple of more calls. brooklyn, new york. mike, democrat. caller: good morning. ahead with your question or comment, mike. caller: how are you doing? brooklyn and de blasio moving them 600 plainclothes officers to other details, people are afraid to leave their home. senior citizens were stuck in their home with the kung fu

virus, and now the stuff with the protests, something's gotta be done about it. de blasio needs to get the hell out of office. cuomo, with his bill reform, needs to get the hell out of office. host: you're calling in on our line for democrats. you usually vote democrat? caller: yes. i haven't voted in -- i can't go along with the democrats anymore. i haven't voted in several years. something's gotta be done with this. we need the police for protection. it was going to protect us if there isn't any police? host: mike in new york. we will try to get in john from cleveland, ohio. go ahead. caller: congressman, you should do your homework. i'm 84 years old.

caspar weinberger, iran-contra, the same attorney general. he is a shame for this office. i'm more worried about him than anybody else in this country. nobody is above the law. i'm an american citizen. shame on him. i watched yesterday's hearing. i watched c-span every day. iran contra. the horse should kick him in the rodeo. host: congressman i will give you the last minute or two here. york, made from new a compelling case. we need to apply common sense. we are in a moment in america that gives us an opportunity to make some meaningful reforms. to bridge relationships across the aisle between sociodemographic and racial distant -- differences. we have to do it with,, reasonable voices. we have to be able to listen to one another, hear those

concerns, and try to address them in a way that makes the changes the country needs. we are a great country. the greatest in the history of the world. we are exceptional for a reason. we've faced challenges before and we will face this. we are going to have to do it together. when we have these partisan squabbles it does not help us in that regard. appreciate the passion, i would just encourage everybody to -- this comes down to a community level. we make all of the laws in the world in washington, and at the end of the day this is less a policy issue than it is a heart issue. we have to value of one another as neighbors and understand that everyone has dignity and value because we are all made by god and we are given the same rights. we are made in his image and we have to remember that. appreciate the passion on both sides, and glad to be with you. host: as we are waiting for the house, you mentioned the challenges we are facing

together. a spike in coronavirus cases around the country. tell us about where you are in louisiana and proposals and ands for renewed lockdowns going back into stricter quarantining in this country. is that something you might support? guest: in louisiana we are stuck in phase two of reopening. our governor extended that for another 28 days because we had a minor spike. of the important things to monitor his hospitalizations. i was told just yesterday, i think it was 15,000 beds available in louisiana, a little over 500 are filled. we have a lot of capacity left. got to find that balance. cannot completely shut down the economy, because that has long-term negative health effects on people as well. stability,th, their preventative health and the rest. it is a balancing act. there is no perfect answer, but

we have to be thoughtful and deliberate because it affect real lives. theredo you think that needs to be another round of stimulus, another coronavirus response bill? what are we going to see from congress and the coming weeks and months? guest: there's an appetite to do it. i think there is a bipartisan agreement that something needs to be done. the question is why. a lot of us are concerned about the going federal debt that is growing exponentially now. we are to about $26 trillion and counting. runre going to one run -- trillion dollar deficits in perpetuity now. it jeopardizes all of the safety net programs we have. makesaid, if we could targeted, efficient, effective investments to keep businesses afloat and families afloat, that is something i think there would be an appetite for. it can't be caught up in the partisan squabbles and we can't extend unemployment benefits all the way into the middle of next year.

we've got to be targeted, not a shotgun approach. we have to have a rifle approach. if we are able to do that, i think you can get a lot of votes on both sides of the. host: mike johnson, republican of louisiana. we appreciate your time this morning. take your life to the house floor for gavel-to-gavel coverage. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house ays before communication. the clerk: the speaker's room, 2020.gton, d.c., june 25, i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: of thet to the order house of january 7, 2020, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parts.